-1-
{N THE men COURT OF KARNA'l'AK.A AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS 'THE 17TH DAY 01:' ocroame,
BEFORE '%%V
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE RAVE T4
wR:T PEFFTION N0. 1705540E.:3fi0'*z {MW 4' jg « ~ 7
BETVVEEN :
P.G.Sant11i1(111:nar,
8/ 0 Sr'i.R. Gopaiswamy," ~ .__
Aged about 43 years, " "
No.210, 7&1 Cross, - V
Tank Road, N.R.I»!ohal!éi;"" 1 1
Mysore City, :3issa;.%%1»1ysare; ~ .. . PETFFIONER
(BY s1fejKAN1'H, ADVOCA'I'ES.)
AND :
1. Kggxilatakéi state 'I'I" an;'-sport Authority,
D1": Ambsdkar "Va-::d«hi, Bangalore- 1 ,
'V « itSVAf.:"}«::Cr§tary.
A Road 'I'ransport
By i115; 'Managing Director.
Qérporaiicxi, Coimbature, Division-II,
Chermamalai Road, Erode ('l'a111i1I1adu),
. . RESPONDENTS
A “(BY SM’I’.M.C.NAGASHREié3, HCGP FOR R1.
SRI.B.N.JAYADEV, ADVOCATE FGR R2.)
‘k***
W.’-“H
…2….
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
22′? of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
impugied order passed in R.P.No.94-4/2000 dated
19.9.2007 passed by the Tribunal as per A:onexure~S
and etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary in
‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the fo1low_i;’i*g:«-I –. _
The petitioner seeks for 3 of,’
quash the order dated the
Tribuiiaivide Annexure-S in
2. The ‘I’I’ibunal;’ of’ impugrled order,
set aside the ‘therein and remanded the
matter ” respondent therein for
, A_ reeeiisideratien the second respondent to
‘e;perate,_vti1e«sereiees till his application is disposed off by
the Aggrieved by the same, the present
is filed.
The ieamed counsel for the petitioner
it snhmitted that the finding of the ‘I’ribunal is erroneous
,…u_.
….3…
in so far as it relates to the fact that no material was
placed by the appellant therein to substantiate his case.
The petitioner submits that substantial materiais were
placed by him and the finding therefore is erroneoiiS.:44eI”~V: 2.
4. I have hwrd the learned it —
petitioner and the respondents.
5. The impugned order is ian”‘order.’»-of.’
directirig the first respondentlvlvtherein to the
matter.~i”he. oifthe peitifioner herein have also
been preteeted he is permitted to operate
till his _ap;x>Iielationj–. off. Fmflier more, it is
V’ A to submit such documents he
and also to reiy on records to
rights before the iirst respondent
‘therein.._l’ do not find any reason as to Why the
it order of remand requires reconsideration.
Qgkw.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ
devoid of merits is accordingly rejected.
%.%{‘Jud4¢ firi%
1
W 1